Tat'dGreaser:Well they have a point, helmets only work in certain accidents. It's not going to save you when a car runs you over.

Run me clear over? Probably not.

For the pickup that hit-and-runned me into a ditch, though, 15 years ago, breaking multiple bones and smashing the hell out of the helmet I was wearing? I can't conclusively prove that it helped me, but I'm glad I was wearing it then and wear them regularly today. When people ask about it, I show them the surgery scars on my arm.

Not all cycling activities carry identical risk, and no safety practices come without costs. Sometimes, the costs outweigh the benefits. Sometimes not. The problem with the law is it is a blunt mechanism, and once it gets going it is exceedingly difficult to redirect.

I grew up not wearing a bike helmet. I never saw the need to. Even after I took a header off a retaining wall breaking my wrist, blacking out with a concussion for 10 minutes, I never batted an eye in the direction of a helmet. I had scraped knees/knuckles from all the times my tires slid out from under me, and I still didn't see the need for a helmet.

I see the way people drive their cars/trucks these days. It's not so much driving badly, but their inattentive driving with talking/texting with cellphones that if it's not another vehicle on the road they barely see it. I wear a helmet every time I get on my bike now.

1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.

SniperJoe:Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.

I fell off my bike, sans-helmet at 14, got a concussion, am fine now. Still ride helmet free. They're not such sticklers about it if you're over 16.

In 44 years of living, most of those during the era where nobody wore helmets, I have never known a single person who sustained a head injury while biking. In my sample group of ten other people at work, nobody else had either. Nobody, including me, had even heard of a case.

I shake my head at the helmeted folks riding at 5mph on the park paths by house. Why not wear knee pads and elbow protection too? Lol. The term sheeple has never had a better application than when applied to bike helmet nazis.

As a kid, I learned that the bike I had was very bad to use in a step downhill path in the forest, especially when you try to turn on a side path 3/4 down that hill, and find that the release the pedals brakes and rocks just aren't much to rely on.

I was airborne a good 10-15 feet but luckily, a tree was there to stop me.

And no, I didn't wear an helmet, they didn't exist then.

It wasn't too bad, I ended up with my forehead a bit banged up and my mom freaked over the blood.

But I learned an important lesson that day: My skull had an extra thickness of re-enforcement in the front, so I can literally headbutt like they do in movies.

I just don't feel comfortable riding without a helmet these days. Although, something that always cheeses me off is the people wearing helmets that are either un-secured (and won't stay on in a crash - why get all the drawback of looking like a dork and none of the protective benefit), or are missing the shell (basically just the styrofoam - again, looks like arse and reduces protection).

thornhill:There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

I think this is true, but it's not the only reason that biking won't work in American cities. If you enforced European-style laws on most American cities, gridlock would paralyze them.

However, I am tired of bikers playing both sides of the fence. If they're on the roads, they need to obey traffic laws just like a car. They're smaller and we can't see them as well.

The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

This I'd never support, as part of the above. If you ride a bike, and do something stupid, you should inherit the consequences. If that includes death, well, Darwin grins.

CruJones:Wast there a study on Fark saying that helmets can cause more head injuries? Yes, they can save you from nasty injuries, but they can cause some as well. I think it was because a helmet makes your head 25% bigger, thus more prone to hitting things your bare head would have missed.

I think you mean neck injuries.But yeah, I don't want to put on a helmet either. Why protect the brain, if your neck can break break as a result?

It seems as if there are three types of cyclists who wear helmets:

1) The insecure ones who should probably have their own lane - they wobble and scare easily.

2) The 'I'm invincible now - look at my helmet!'-crowd. They are assholes and their actions reflect it, whether it be texting or going the wrong way.

3) The sensible herd animal, who follows the rules and aren't being a menace in some way. Unfortunately, these have a very short halflife and will quickly turn into either 1) or 2) depending on their level of confidence.

G.I.R.B.:1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.

1. True but irrelevant. Grown don't ask questions like should we have any kind of insurance at all? And don't conclude things like anything that lessens the chance of injury is a good thing. They have to assess how MUCH benefit you get at what cost AT tHE MARGIN.

I have been in hundreds of bike races--- always wear a helmet racing because I have to. I wear a helmet training as well--- since it doesn't take much to hit speeds of 50mph flying down hills, etc...

A helmet did nothing to save my face when I flew over the bars in a nasty crash, nor have they helped when I have gone down in corners (and it is much better to go down with a bike, than up, if you know what I mean).

That said, there is something liberating about not wearing a helmet--- like when I tow my kids to daycare in a bike trailer. Sure, I might not be the best example for them, but I am biking at walking speed, and I am falling no further than if I fell while standing up.

A helmet is NOT insurance. Insurance is a transference of risk to a third party. Insurance does nothing to prevent an unwanted event from happening. Your insurance does not reduce the likelihood of your house being broken into--- it just replaces what was taken. A helmet is designed to be a preventative barrier as a form of risk mitigation. It is designed to be a barrier to protect your head after the undesired crash occurs.

As such, if you really REALLY care about your noggin' you might consider a full face helmet of a motorcycle helmet. Bike helmets weigh a fraction of a pound, and are so fragile as to be rendered as non-reusable in the event of a single crash (hence the crash replacement programs helmet makers offer).

Guess who picks up the tab when fat lazy people who never bike with or without helmets get serious heart disease? That is far more costly than a few outliers who suffer TBI from bike accidents.

G.I.R.B.:1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.

Earlier today, you said you were against mandatory motorcycle helmets because that was a limit to personal freedom. Yet you are against decriminalization of marijuana because marijuana causes brain damage. Can't not wearing a motorcycle helmet cause brain damage a lot quicker by, for example, the head splitting open so that actual material from the road enters the brain?

I've always worn a helmet (full face) when riding a motorcycle, and I've always worn a helmet when riding a bicycle.

Speed or environment don't really factor into the decision. Helmets are, for the most part, designed to protect the head from the impact that would occur if the cyclist were to fall over sideways -- approximately a 13 mph impact of the head on the ground. The speed at which your head hits pavement doesn't vary with the speed at which you're biking. At 30 mph your head is still going to hit the ground at about the same 13 mph if you crash (and don't hit something else along the way -- a car, tree, etc) -- as it would if you were cruising along at 5 mph. Given as much, if you're into the whole helmet thing, you really ought to be wearing one anytime there's a reasonable possibility of a crash.

Don't forget (4): the guy who's a driver, but is using a bike. I fall into that category. When I'm on my bike, I want to put the bare minimum of effort into the experience. I can cut the cognitive load significantly by simply obeying the laws of the road. I still have to be aware of other drivers, and recognize that not everyone is going to obey the law- just because I'm lazy doesn't mean I don't ride defensively.

If I stop at the light and wait for the green, I don't have to worry (as much) about other traffic. If I signal my turns, I don't have to worry (as much) about getting sideswiped. If I clearly maintain space in my lane, and keep pace with traffic, I don't have to worry (as much) about what other drivers are doing.

thornhill:Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

bullshiat.

I take it that you've never stopped for a red light in Paris and been cursed at by French people for stopping. or have had to jump out of bike paths due to Parisian mothers using bike lanes for their strollers.

also, it is generally not possible for Velib to be used by American tourists. you need a card chip on your credit card for it to work, and most Americans don't have that. they take bike tours instead, and if their guide is having them go through red lights, is it the tourists' fault?

sodomizer:thornhill: There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

I think this is true, but it's not the only reason that biking won't work in American cities. If you enforced European-style laws on most American cities, gridlock would paralyze them.

This isn't just about bringing European style laws, but about how you condition people to follow the law without a cop always being present.

With traffic signals, people think, or convince themselves, that traffic signals are for cars, not people. Traffic signals for bikes are a very clear way of telling bikers that this traffic signal is for them.

Further, another advantage of traffic signals for bikes is that they can be on a different cycle than the car singlas. For example, in Amsterdam, at a lot of intersections there are brief windows when only bikes are allowed to enter the intersection. If bikers know that they'll get time to go through the intersection without a car, then they're much more willing to wait for their turn in the cycle.

The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

This I'd never support, as part of the above. If you ride a bike, and do something stupid, you should inherit the consequences. If that includes death, well, Darwin grins.

That's not what the purpose is: it's about protecting bikers from cars that are being agressive towards bikers. A common scenario I can think of is if a car and a bike come to a stop sign intersection at the same time. As a matter of safety, the car should always let the biker go through the intersection first.

European law makes it clear that cars always need to take the high road -- no pun intended -- when dealing with bikers. You may joke about a biker getting what they deserve when they do something stupid, but when you're the one who kills a biker, you're going to feel different.

I cycle everyday, and I really don't understand why you WOULDN'T wear a helmet. Are they really that difficult for people to wear? Is it because of your hair or something? Or is this really a problem only with certain groups of people (ahem..hipsters...) that wouldn't look "cool" wearing a helmet?

I guess it really depends on why you're riding: exercise (certainly wear a helmet), commuting (probably wear a helmet), or just farting around (depends, I guess). Dunno, just don't see any real drawbacks to wearing one.

thornhill:European law makes it clear that cars always need to take the high road -- no pun intended -- when dealing with bikers.

In the early days of motorcars, common law held that the larger vehicle was automatically at fault in an accident. If a car struck a pedestrian, it was the driver's fault, regardless of what the pedestrian was doing. A concerted effort by auto-manufacturers was employed to change that law. The AAA's pedestrian safety programs were initially employed to reverse the traditional notions of roadway safety.

It works this way in Toronto (decently successful bike share program, no helmet requirement for adults). Just from looking around I'd say about half to two-thirds of the bike riders wear helmets. And I definitely fit into the category of people who ride less because of a helmet requirement - even though there's no helmet law, I have kids, and I'm not going to make myself a hypocrite about helmets. Every morning I walk out of my house and can choose whether to take public transit or get on my bike. Last year I rode my bike a ton, this year I barely rode it at all. The difference? Sigh.... last year I had shorter hair and the helmet didn't matter as much. I admit it seems stupid but I'm on my way to work, I don't like getting there sweaty and disheveled, and the helmet impacts both.

G.I.R.B.:1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

As already noted, your understanding of insurance is weak.

Also, did you spend your child-hood wrapped in bubblewrap or something? How can you possibly argue that because there is a risk of "simply falling onto a hard surface" that helmets must be mandated by law. Do you wear a helmet every hour? Or better yet, you should probably wear one in bed... you may roll off the bed in your sleep! I suppose you could always raise the gate on your crib to prevent rolling out... but I digress....

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.

Whatever. All you pussies can have your helmets, I'll continue to ride my street bike the way I always have, Shorts, flip flops, a cig hanging out of my mouth and an open six pack in the front rack. Hell, I never, ever even wore a motorcycle helmet for short trips in nice weather until the goddamn nanny state stepped in.

I ride more recklessly when helmeted. Took a header goin' darn fast, smooshed the styro to paper-thinness. Don't wear one to ride around the block to the convenience. Hard shells protect against poky things only. Guy upthread was right; if you do wear one, wear it tightly.

//concision should be striven for//concussions we should probably seek to avoid

Nurglitch:I just don't feel comfortable riding without a helmet these days. Although, something that always cheeses me off is the people wearing helmets that are either un-secured (and won't stay on in a crash - why get all the drawback of looking like a dork and none of the protective benefit), or are missing the shell (basically just the styrofoam - again, looks like arse and reduces protection).

You see?! No helmet! You've all been convinced you don't need a helmet on a ladder. And sure, 99% of the time you won't fall, but that 1 time you do and hit your head on the hard floor, you'll be sorry!

Sybarite:fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme.

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.

Vandalism of bikes has declined, and the system achieved profitability in 2011.

another neat stat for the bike helmet debate: In addition, during this time, only six people have died in traffic accidents involving rental bicycles.

Sybarite:fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.

I guess I don't understand how 'vandals' can get away with that. Is the rental system not tied to a credit card? I would assume that if a bike is returned severely damaged, or just not returned at all, the repair/replacement cost is billed to the card.

On a different note, I wonder if the $1-2M per year it takes to repair the bikes is offset by the reduced need to increase capacity in the Metro. Maybe the vélib customers are so few it doesn't matter, but it's a thought...

The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.

Loomy:Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.

I guess I don't understand how 'vandals' can get away with that. Is the rental system not tied to a credit card? I would assume that if a bike is returned severely damaged, or just not returned at all, the repair/replacement cost is billed to the card.

On a different note, I wonder if the $1-2M per year it takes to repair the bikes is offset by the reduced need to increase capacity in the Metro. Maybe the vélib customers are so few it doesn't matter, but it's a thought...

the system cannot tell if the bike returns damaged. you only get charged if you fail to return the bicycle.

also, the charge does not offset the cost of a bike replacement. the bike itself costs 400 euros, but the charge for not returning it is just 150.

give me doughnuts:The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.

I've never quite understood the 'helmet hanging from handlebars' behaviour. Is it because the cycling one is currently engaged in isn't quite dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but may warrant it later? Do they think they'll be able to slip it on sneakily enough after they spot the cops that they won't be caught anyway (in a place with helmet laws, obviously)? I just don't get it.